This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Official: U.S. soldier opened fire on Afghan civilians

Originally Posted by Blue_State

I am shocked because I agree with all of that statement.

There is much that liberals and libertarians have in common in regards to foreign policy.

Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

Re: Official: U.S. soldier opened fire on Afghan civilians

Originally Posted by Catawba

There is much that liberals and libertarians have in common in regards to foreign policy.

Depends on the individual. My own foreign policy views are not quite so hawkish as that of most conservatives, yet I also find Ron Paul's isolationism to be disgusting to me (no other word for it - his extreme stance on foreign policy is disgusting). That being said, when it comes to watching the GOP debates, Paul seems to be the most sane out of all of those on stage.

Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.

Re: Official: U.S. soldier opened fire on Afghan civilians

The American public just needs to apply more pressure to the president to end the war.

Too bad it's no longer legal.

"I do not claim that every incident in the history of empire can be explained in directly economic terms. Economic interests are filtered through a political process, policies are implemented by a complex state apparatus, and the whole system generates its own momentum."

Re: Official: U.S. soldier opened fire on Afghan civilians

Well, at least he didnt urinate on them

“Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

"In recent years we've allowed our Alliance to drift. I know that there have been honest disagreements over policy, but we also know that there's something more that has crept into our relationship. In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world. Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive. But in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what's bad. On both sides of the Atlantic, these attitudes have become all too common. They are not wise. They do not represent the truth. They threaten to widen the divide across the Atlantic and leave us both more isolated."

So, did he apologize? No, he did not apologize.

2. Apology to the Muslim World (“We Have Not Been Perfect”). President Obama, interview with Al Arabiya, January 27, 2009.

"My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy, We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect."

I am sorry, you might see that as an apology, in fact, he only said we sometimes make mistakes, we have not been perfect. I did not see, I apologize for the mistakes America has made. That is an apology, what Obama said did not amount to an apology.

3. Apology to the Summit of the Americas (“At Times We Sought to Dictate Our Terms”). President Obama, address to the Summit of the Americas opening ceremony, Hyatt Regency, Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, April 17, 2009.

I read the entire statement, not an apology

4. Apology at the G-20 Summit of World Leaders (“Some Restoration of America’s Standing in the World”). News conference by President Obama, ExCel Center, London, United Kingdom, April 2, 2009.

Well, saying you are going to restore America's standing in the world sounds more like a plan, not an apology.

5. Apology for the War on Terror (“We Went off Course”). President Obama, speech at the National Archives, Washington, D.C., May 21, 2009.

I do not see it saying, sorry we went off course. So, again, not an apology, next try

Saying you disagree with policies of the past does not amount to apologizing for those policies.

7. Apology before the Turkish Parliament (“Our Own Darker Periods in Our History”). Speech by President Obama to the Turkish Parliament, Ankara, Turkey, April 6, 2009.

The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history. Facing the Washington Monument that I spoke of is a memorial of Abraham Lincoln, the man who freed those who were enslaved even after Washington led our Revolution. Our country still struggles with the legacies of slavery and segregation, the past treatment of Native Americans. Human endeavor is by its nature imperfect. History is often tragic, but unresolved, it can be a heavy weight. Each country must work through its past."

The actual words of Obama, again, not an appointment, next attempt please

8. Apology for U.S. Policy toward the Americas (“The United States Has Not Pursued and Sustained Engagement with Our Neighbors”).

It is the same again and again, saying things are apologies when they are not in fact apologies but statements about how situations between countries, he did not apologize of the fact that the US did not do those things, now did he?

9. Apology for the Mistakes of the CIA (“Potentially We’ve Made Some Mistakes”). Remarks by the President to CIA employees, CIA Headquarters, Langley, Virginia, April 20, 2009. The remarks followed the controversial decision to release Office of Legal Counsel memoranda detailing CIA enhanced interrogation techniques used against terrorist suspects.

I am sorry, but since when does someone "apologize for mistakes by the CIA" in a speech to the CIA. This is what Obama said:

"Don't be discouraged that we have to acknowledge potentially we've made some mistakes. That's how we learn. But the fact that we are willing to acknowledge them and then move forward, that is precisely why I am proud to be President of the United States, and that's why you should be proud to be members of the CIA."

acknowledging mistakes is not apology. And let's face it, above statement doesn't even look like an apology.

10. Apology for Guantanamo in Washington (“A Rallying Cry for Our Enemies”). President Obama, speech at the National Archives, Washington, D.C., May 21, 2009.

"There is also no question that Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America's strongest currency in the world. Instead of building a durable framework for the struggle against al Qaeda that drew upon our deeply held values and traditions, our government was defending positions that undermined the rule of law. In fact, part of the rationale for establishing Guantanamo in the first place was the misplaced notion that a prison there would be beyond the law--a proposition that the Supreme Court soundly rejected. Meanwhile, instead of serving as a tool to counter terrorism, Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.

"So the record is clear: Rather than keeping us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security. It is a rallying cry for our enemies."

Here is that statement. It is at worst an opinion that is not inkeeping with the former Bush administration", an apology however, it is not.

So, my conclusion (and for that matter also of Factcheck) is that all this nonsense about apologies is just

Re: Official: U.S. soldier opened fire on Afghan civilians

Originally Posted by StillBallin75

Depends on the individual. My own foreign policy views are not quite so hawkish as that of most conservatives, yet I also find Ron Paul's isolationism to be disgusting to me (no other word for it - his extreme stance on foreign policy is disgusting). That being said, when it comes to watching the GOP debates, Paul seems to be the most sane out of all of those on stage.

I said they had much in common. I didn't say they were in complete sync. I also don't agree with Paul's isolationism, but I do agree that we cannot afford any longer to spend almost as much as the rest of the world combined on the military industrial complex. I also agree with Paul that our Constitution does not give us the authority for the optional preemptive wars where concrete proof of clear and present danger is not provided.

Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

Re: Official: U.S. soldier opened fire on Afghan civilians

Originally Posted by Catawba

I said they had much in common. I didn't say they were in complete sync. I also don't agree with Paul's isolationism, but I do agree that we cannot afford any longer to spend almost as much as the rest of the world combined on the military industrial complex. I also agree with Paul that our Constitution does not give us the authority for the optional preemptive wars where concrete proof of clear and present danger is not provided.

Paul is really NOT an isolationist... I'm not sure why that talking point survives. Each time I hear him speak and as I've researched his position over the last two elections, his views are not isolationist. He's not going to close off the borders, prevent foreigners from traveling to the U.S. and put up an iron curtain. He's very anti-MIC and wants us to follow the Constitution to the letter when conflicts break out. That's not isolationist - if anything it's more Constituionalist.